Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the incriminating material that came in evidence is to be put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph said that this is in recognition of the principles of audialterampartem so that the accused gets a fair chance to defend himself.

NDPS: Reverse Burden Of Proof Does Not Absolve Prosecution From Establishing Prima Facie Case Against Accused [Hanif Khan @ Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau Of Narcotics]

The Supreme Court observed that, though Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act carries reverse burden of proof, it does not absolve the prosecution from establishing a prima facie case against the accused.The bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee was considering an appeal challenging conviction of an accused under Sections 8 and 18(b) of the NDPS Act sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default stipulation

Proof That Offence Was Committed Only Because Victim Was SC-ST Member Necessary To Sustain Conviction U/s 3(2)(v) SC-ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act [Khuman Singh vs. State of MP]

In order to sustain a conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it must be proved that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste, the Supreme Court has reiterated. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna set aside the conviction of the accused under the SC-ST Act on the ground that there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the accused only because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

Outer Limit Of 120 Days To File 'Section 34' Application To Set Aside Arbitral Award Not Diluted By 2015 Amendment [NHAI vs. SubhashBindlish]

The Supreme Court observed that the mandate under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act providing outer limit of 120 days to file an application to set aside Arbitral Award remains unchanged even after 2015 amendment of the Act.

Subsequent Bail Application Maintainable Before Sessions Court After Withdrawal Of First One Filed Before HC [Sharad vs. State of Maharashtra]

An accused after withdrawing his bail application before the High Court can file a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court, the Supreme Court held. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Ajay Rastogi was considering appeal filed against a High Court order that revoked the bail granted to accused by the Sessions Court on the ground that the application was not maintainable before it as he previously approached the High Court for bail and subsequently withdrew the bail application.

Judicial Service- HC Can't Modify/Relax Instructions Issued By Public Service Commission [State of Tamil Nadu V. G. Hemalathaa]

The Supreme Court recently observed that instructions issued by the Public Service Commissions to the candidates are mandatory and to be strictly complied with and the High Courts cannot relax/modify these instructions.

Can SC Interfere With HC's Discretion Entertaining Writ Petition In Spite Of There Being Alternative Remedy? SC Bench Delivers Split Judgment [State of Rajasthan vs. Lord Northbrook]

Can the Supreme Court interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the order of the High Court, merely on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy? A two judge bench comprising of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee recently delivered a split judgment on the issue. Disagreeing with Justice Banumathi's order setting aside a judgment of the High Court on the ground of alternative remedy, Justice Banerjee observed that it is always a matter of discretion with the Court and if the discretion has been exercised by the High Court not unreasonably or perversely, it is settled practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court.

Judicial Service-A Candidate Applied For General Category Cannot Subsequently Claim Seat Reserved For Disabled Candidate [Rajasthan HC V. Neetu Harsh]

The Supreme Court held that a Candidate Applied for General Category cannot claim the seat reserved for disabled candidates at a later stage.The Bench comprising Justices R Banumati and AS Bopanna dismissed the claim of a visually impaired candidate who had filled the application form under General category, and later claimed a seat reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) category in Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2016.

Expert Evidence Should Not Be Given Precedence Over Substantive Evidence [Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy vs. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead)]

The Supreme Court reiterated that expert evidence should not be given precedence over substantive evidence. In this case the disputed signature of the first defendant was identified by his brother as those of the first defendant himself.

Rent Control Revision- HC Can't Re-appreciate Oral Or Documentary Evidence On Record [Daya Rani vs. Shabbir Ahmed]

In the context of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising revisional power, the High Court cannot reappreciate oral or documentary evidence on record. The bench comprising Justice UdayUmeshLalit and Justice Vineet Saran was considering an appeal against Punjab and Haryana High Court order in a revision petition that set aside concurrent orders of the courts below.

Unfair Means During Examination: Discovery Of Material With Candidate Sufficient To Take Action [UPSC vs. Mayank Rai]

The Supreme Court has observed that the discovery of material with a candidate which was meant to use for 'unfair means' during examination would suffice to take action against him/her. It is not as if only on actual use being made of the material detected by the examiner that action can be taken, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph said.

Approval Of UGC & AICTE Mandatory For Institutions Intending To Offer B.Tech Through Distance Learning Mode [Vinit Garg vs. UGC]

The Supreme Court reiterated that it mandatory for institutions intending to impart technical courses through distance learning mode to seek approval and recognition of University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education.

Development Cost Bangalore Its Beauty: SC Expresses Concern About City's Degrading Environment [Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Ltd vs. State of Karnataka]

The city's environment is degraded so much and so fast that the time will not be far away for us to say "once upon a time Bangalore was a beautiful city", said a concerned Supreme Court. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah made these quite 'out of context' observations in a judgment disposing civil appeals in a Land Acquisition Matter.

NHAI: Application Under Section 11 Arbitration & Conciliation Act To Appoint Arbitrator Not Maintainable [NHAI vs.Sayedabad Tea Company Ltd.]

The Supreme Cour theld that an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an Arbitrator in relation to disputes with National Highways Authority Of India is not maintainable in view of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 which provides for such appointment by the Central Government.The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi set aside an order passed by the High Court of Calcutta appointing an Arbitrator invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

SC Upholds Enhancement Of Maximum Age Limit To Post Of Medical College Professors In UP [Dr. Professor Rajendra Chaudhary vs. State of UP]

The Supreme Court has upheld enhancement of the maximum age limit to the posts of Professor in Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh from 45 years to 65 years. One of the issues raised was whether enhancement of the upper age limit for appointment to the post of Professor by direct recruitment is contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Medical Colleges Teachers' Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2005.

Other Significant Orders and Proceedings

• The bench of Justices Bhanumati and A S Bopanna dismissed the petition filed by the former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram challenging the August 20 judgment of the Delhi High Court that refused pre-arrest bail to him in the case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation in the INX media case.
• AllowedSitaramYechury, the general secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist), to travel to Kashmir to meet detained party leader Mohammad YousufTarigami to ascertain his whereabouts and medical welfare. The bench consisting of CJI RanjanGogoi, Justice S A Bobde and Abdul Nazeer observed that citizens must be allowed to have access to Jammu and Kashmir.
• The bench headed by Justice N V Ramana issued notice to governments of Centre and States on a Public Interest Petition (PIL) seeking to direct all States establish online web portals for filing of online RTI applications.
• Referred to Constitution Bench the petitions challenging the validity of the the abrogation of special status of Jammu and Kashmir and the downgrading of the state into a Union Territory. The bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S A Bobde and Abdul Nazeer said that the matters will be heard in October.
• While considering a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 3(2)(f) of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules, 1961, directed that no new appointments be made from now onwards of in-service candidates against quota reserved for Bar.
• Issued notice on plea to allow deposit of demonitised currency worth rs 1.17 crores
• A Three Judge Bench referred to larger bench the question whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution?